Spring 2005
Download Spring 2005 issue (PDF, 2.4MB)Table of Contents
From the Publisher's DeskThe Real Barriers to Evangelical Creation-care by Jim Ball
A Devotion from the Healthy Families, Healthy Environment website
Advice from Farm Country by Jeffrey L. Hawkins
Paradise Lost? by Scott Sabin
Climate Change: a Christian Challenge and Opportunity by Sir John Houghton
Organic Gardening by Kara Unger Ball
From the Publisher's Desk
Dear Friends,
I'll be honest with you, I don't really like the phrase "future generations." It's a phrase that is used quite often when people bring up the concepts of stewardship and conservation. We're to conserve and be good stewards of natural resources, good stewards of the Earth, for "future generations."
The problem I have with the phrase "future generations" is that it sounds abstract and far off. Who, exactly, are we talking about? We're talking about theoretical people, people who don't yet exist, but who probably will. While it is good for us to care about "future generations," this way of describing them doesn't warm my heart enough to get me off my duff.
But when you say, "Let's care for creation and make it a better place for our kids and grandkids," or "Let's reduce pollution for the health of today's children and children yet to be born," then I start to visualize particular children, I think of pregnant women I know, I think that these kids will want healthy children of their own, and say to myself, "Yea, let's do it for them."
Ultimately we do creation-care because it is the Lord's will. But He wills it in part because of the kids I visualize. So we do creation-care for the children in keeping with the Lord's will. It doesn't matter what the creation-care activity is - from lessening environmental degradation in poor countries through reforestation, to reflecting on better farming practices, to helping evangelicals understand and overcome barriers to their willingness to do creation-care, to sounding the call on climate change - all of this can help contribute to a better life for our children and grandchildren, for the kids of today and tomorrow. You'll find articles in this issue on these topics. When you read them, think about particular children you know. But also think about all the children you don't personally know, such as the beautiful child from Simbo Island (part of the Solomon Islands in the Pacific ocean). Creation-care - it's for the children.
A note of apology for the tardiness of this issue of the magazine. A key staff person suffered an accident and was incapacitated longer than we anticipated. We thank you for your understanding and your prayers for our ministry and for the recovery of our staffer.
In Christ, Jim Ball
The Real Barriers to Evangelical Creation-care
Jim BallAre irrational and dangerous end-of-the-world views of conservative Christians-"the earth is going to be burned up anyway, so why care for it"-behind the environmental policies of our Republican-controlled federal government?
Put aside for a moment any thoughts about whether the presuppositions behind this thesis are correct, because the "secret" has now been exposed by Glenn Scherer, an investigative reporter for the online environmental magazine Grist, in an article provocatively titled "The Godly Must Be Crazy."
But wait, there's more. The Grist "exposé" was catapulted into the national spotlight when veteran journalist Bill Moyers made it the centerpiece of a speech on December 1 in New York City that was subsequently excerpted in numerous newspapers, including the Minneapolis Star-Tribune, the Oakland Tribune, the Miami Herald, and the Indianapolis Star.
Many readers were troubled by factual errors in the Grist article, and the website has run a correction regarding one blatant inaccuracy: Scherer's claim that James Watt, the first Secretary of the Interior in the Reagan administration, told a congressional hearing that there was no need to worry about preserving natural resources because "God gave us these things to use. After the last tree is felled, Christ will come back." Moyers, who had repeated the apocryphal quote in his speech, later issued a correction. Nevertheless, his speech was already part of the environmentalist canon.
I have been an appreciative reader of Grist since its inception. And I have admired some of the work of Bill Moyers. But they really blew it this time.
The Scherer/Moyers storyline belongs in the fiction-is-stranger-than-truth category. While they have captured a lot of attention with a disturbing and salacious conspiracy theory, it is neither accurate nor helpful.
In fact, the Grist article's thesis provides a perverse form of comfort to those who view conservative Christians warily, confirming what they already believe: "I always knew those people were crazy." It also provides a scapegoat for explaining bad public policy: "Well, at least I know who to blame for wrecking the environment."
Most disturbing, the Scherer/Moyers attack on evangelicals gives cover to the environment's true enemies. Anti-environmental industry leaders aware of the Scherer-Moyers "end-times" argument must be laughing all the way to the bank, as attention is deflected from them toward conservative Christians.
There are indeed barriers to evangelicals embracing environmental issues or creation-care, including for some their end-times views. The real question that should have been addressed by Scherer and Moyers is, what are the most important barriers to evangelicals caring for God's creation? And a follow-up would be, what is keeping evangelicals and environmentalists from working together to care for the environment? A good starting point for Scherer and Moyers could have been, "Why do evangelicals dismiss creation-care as a liberal concern when the Bible calls them to do it?" I'll address such questions in a moment.
But first, in relation to the Scherer-Moyers thesis, the issue is not whether some conservative Christians hold what others perceive to be strange end-time views. The issue is whether these views significantly affect their care for God's creation. The answer, in my opinion, is no.
Even for those Christians for whom end-times views are a barrier to creation-care, this hurdle is not a very high one and is, in my experience, easily dispelled. I usually ask them, "You take care of your own body, don't you?" I then go on to explain that the biblical vision of the end-times-resurrected bodies on a New Earth-actually supports a creation-care perspective.
To switch metaphors, dispensationalist end-times views are a half-mile wide-thanks in large part to the best-selling "Left Behind" book series-but only an inch deep. Hardly anyone makes important day-to-day decisions based upon these end-times views. As Ted Haggard, president of the National Association of Evangelicals, recently commented in The Washington Post, "The authors of the 'Left Behind' books have life insurance policies." And Professor John Green, a pollster and expert on evangelical views told the Post that end-times beliefs justifying anti-environmental attitudes and behavior is a "fringe" phenomenon. Even the king of the popular dispensationalists, Tim LaHaye, co-author of the "Left Behind" series, recently said on "Larry King Live" that Christians should work for clean air and water.
As to the real questions-what are the most important barriers to a creation-care consciousness among evangelicals, and what keeps evangelicals and environmentalists from cooperating-the answer to both is essentially the same.
The main reason many conservative evangelicals have not been as engaged in caring for God's creation as the Bible calls them to be is because in their minds "environmentalists" are liberals who hold beliefs (e.g. pantheism) and values (e.g. population control) that can be harmful and lead people astray. Indeed, becoming an environmentalist could lead one to become a full-blown liberal, and thus turn away from conservative Christian values and those who hold them. Some evangelicals are also concerned about what they regard as liberal solutions to environmental problems: big government and oppressive regulations.
Because environmentalists are perceived to be liberals by many conservative evangelicals, anything tagged as an "environmental" concern must be liberal, too. There is an unfortunate guilt-by-association dynamic at play: if something is liberal, then evangelicals should have nothing to do with it.
This environmentalism-is-liberal barrier stops many evangelicals from exploring the richness of the Bible's message on creation-care, creating additional barriers of ignorance and lack of motivation.
What we have by and large are two subcultures viewing each other through the inaccurate stereotypes they hold of the other. This is why the Grist article is so unhelpful. It feeds those stereotypes. Dismissing each other as weird or crazy means that: 1() a significant number of evangelicals shy away from creation-care; and (2) we are not working to find common ground in solving the serious environmental problems that are threatening human health and harming the rest of creation.
There is a political problem here, but it is not the one the Grist article puts forward. Until recently, a lack of serious involvement by many evangelical Christians in creation-care issues has freed politicians attuned to evangelical concerns to listen instead to other powerful voices on environmental issues (e.g. big business).
But things are starting to change. First, many evangelical swing voters are concerned about creation-care, which could begin to tip their votes.
Second, creation-care is starting to resonate not just with evangelical progressives, but with conservatives at the center of the evangelical spectrum. Recently, in its document "For the Health of the Nation: An Evangelical Call to Civic Responsibility," the National Association of Evangelicals stated that Genesis 2:15 "implies the principle of sustainability: our uses of the Earth must be designed to conserve and renew the Earth rather than to deplete or destroy it … We urge government to encourage fuel efficiency, reduce pollution, encourage sustainable use of natural resources, and provide for the proper care of wildlife and their natural habitats."
As increasing numbers of rank-and-file evangelical Christians understand more deeply that reducing pollution is loving your neighbor, as they become more aware of mercury's impact on the unborn, that 1 in 6 newborns have potentially harmful levels of mercury in their blood, as evangelicals become more aware that global warming is real and is projected to harm and even kill millions of the world's poorest, whom Jesus Christ identified with himself (Mt. 25:40), they will become more engaged.
Are there real differences between conservative evangelicals and environmentalists? Sure. There always are between subcultures. Will these differences make us uncomfortable with each other at times? Of course. Is common ground to be found through reducing pollution that hurts people and caring for all of God's creation? Absolutely. The time has come for olive branches all around.
Those environmentalists who do not share our faith perspective will have to understand that we evangelicals will have some different reasons for addressing environmental concerns. We may use different language, like "creation-care," and some of us may be more comfortable with labels like "conservationist" rather than "environmentalist." And, frankly, some of us may seem strange at times. But once committed to a cause, we can help make a difference.
Editor's Note: An earlier version of this article appeared on BeliefNet.Com March 2, 2005, entitled "Ungodly Distortions". Used with permission from the author.
A Devotion from the Healthy Families, Healthy Environment website
A Devotion from the Healthy Families, Healthy Environment website
People were bringing little children to Jesus to have him touch them, but the disciples rebuked them. When Jesus saw this, he was indignant. He said to them, "Let the little children come to me, and do not hinder them, for the kingdom of God belongs to such as these. I tell you the truth, anyone who will not receive the kingdom of God like a little child will never enter it." And he took the children in his arms, put his hands on them and blessed them.
This is probably the most famous passage concerning Jesus and children in the New Testament. For many Christians the story line and lessons are well-worn paths in our memories.
Parents want their children blessed. The disciples tell them to get lost; the teacher's time is too important to be wasted on children. Jesus gets mad when he sees this. The disciples still don't understand Jesus' mission. He has come to help those who need help - which includes all of us, especially children. The Kingdom of God belongs to those who know they need His help, and ask for it. That's what children do. They recognize they need help and ask for it.
Do we truly follow Jesus and bless children by our actions, by reducing pollution and environmental degradation? A blessing concerns present and future well-being. So do we bless or hinder their well-being? They need our help.
Advice from Farm Country
Jeffrey L. HawkinsYears ago, when we were both teenagers, a friend agreed to join me for a visit to my grandparents' Indiana farm for the weekend. She'd spent her life in the city, so that most of what she would encounter on the farm was unfamiliar to her, from the smells of freshly-spread manure and freshly-turned earth, to the sounds of slamming hog feeders and lowing cattle, to the conversation about the day's commodity prices and the recent chore of butchering chickens.
The uneasiness of unfamiliarity was relieved somewhat when the family was called to dinner, for there is something about gathering around a table to share a meal that remains inclusive and inviting no matter what the participant's background. She welcomed the common ground of fried chicken, mashed potatoes, fresh green beans, homemade pie, and friendly talk. As the conversation moved inevitably back to farm-related topics, she was able to relax in her thoughts, until one pierced the calm of her mind. She stopped eating in mid-bite, stared at her plate, and then blurted out, "Was this one of the chickens you butchered yesterday?" Horrified when they matter-of-factly answered in the affirmative, she cried, "But you knew him!"
To this young city-dweller, it was a new idea that the meat on her plate had arrived there from a source other than the grocery store, wrapped in plastic. It jolted her sensibilities to consider the apparent barbarism of killing an animal "you knew" in order to feed yourself. She could not readily understand these people of the soil; her distance from the land had distanced her from the truth it told, even truth about her own existence. Lacking direct connection to the earth, she was unaware of the reality of its natural order. So she had made up her own ordering of things, an unnatural construct of reality from which to live. Chicken came from the store, boneless.
Almost 80% of the people in the United States live in cities, which suggests that many lack direct connection with the soil. What implications does this have for the way a majority of Americans, likely a majority of Christians, view "reality?" What does it mean, for example, that so many people confront time as something mastered in eight-hour shifts rather than received as day and night? What does it mean that to a majority of our nation's inhabitants that water is something controlled with pipes and valves and faucets rather than something received as a precious gift of heaven? What does it mean that to the greater number of our citizens the soil itself is something to organize with bulldozers and cover with concrete, or as something to conquer with detergents, rather than to use reverently as pregnant with life? What does it mean that the environment known by so many as sidewalks and streetlights is the organizational product of planners and political powers rather than, as is true of streams and pastures and forests, the graciously ordered gift of God?
There is a difference between organization-the structure that human creatures impose upon nature-and order-the structure that humans receive from nature. In the biblical tradition, humanity receives in its very being the gracious order offered by the soil as humans spring forth from humus. Severing humanity's intimate relationship to the soil invites the chaos of disorder, as mastering minds work hard to reconstruct "reality" and organize it outside the givens of Creation. With logic that can come only by disregarding Creation's given know as the "food chain," for example, some radical "rights" activists would strip beef cattle of their holy purpose as nourishment for both people and land as they organize them into useless, worthless being "put out to pasture" for no reason. How terrible to exist for no reason, to have no place in the scheme of things!
Sadly, even farmers are not exempt from similar logic. The organization of cattle into feedlots, which produce manure as unwanted waste, is a poor replacement for the naturally-ordered partnership of field and livestock in which each functions to improve the other. Farmers who once touched the soil with reverent knees now remove themselves farther and farther from the soil as they buy taller and taller tractors and cover more and more land with concrete. Is it any wonder that the agricultural mindset that once recognized a humble partnership with nature now sees the task as one of conquering Creation by organizing it with heavy equipment, unnatural chemicals, computer software, and factory-like procedures?
To stay in touch with the truth of Creation's gracious order, is isn't enough to organize nature into an occasional vacation in the woods or into stunning photographic images on glossy paper courtesy of a fine nature magazine, as delightful as these things may be. What is needed is regular, ongoing purposeful contact with the soil. What is needed, as near as I can tell, is for everyone-urban or rural, in the city or on the farm-to grow some of what they eat. For perhaps by the simple means of direct, purposeful contact with the soil-from just a small patch in the back yard or even a couple of clay pots on the patio-members of our society and of the Christian community might nourish enough of an agrarian mindset to respect the basic order of their residential setting as the river valley or former forest or prairie that it is, even as society urbanizes and removes people from the land as a livelihood. Yes, perhaps a regularly-renewed, direct dose of nature's order, even as we live amidst organized streets and water mains and power lines, will grow us toward a human culture that delights in its partnership with Creation. What better way to establish common ground that by the ground itself?
As I preach to people in congregations in northeastern Indiana, and do public speaking for other gatherings, I often tell "farm stories," such as the one that began this piece. My hearers consistently report to me that they like the farm stories better than the other things I say. "We love those stories," they tell me, "even though we don't farm any more, or never did. We love them because they seem so real to us. Maybe they seem so real because we are all from the land, after all."
I fear the day when people are so disconnected that no one says this anymore.
Paradise Lost?
Scott SabinThe green hump of Ghizo Island disappeared behind a rain cloud, leaving nothing in sight but the dark gray-green sea. The wind whipped up the swell and warm spray blew back over the bow. Tepid seawater sloshed over the gunwales as the fiberglass canoe rolled from side to side, speeding along under outboard motor. It was starting to rain - the drops only slightly cooler than the sea. Half a mile away, a couple waved from another canoe, their small vessel leaping from wave to wave as they sped home from market.
One could be forgiven for thinking this might be paradise. Crystal clear lagoons are embraced by white sandy beaches and teem with multicolored fish. Lush rainforest covers the islands throughout the Western Province of the Solomon Islands. Small clusters of sago palm houses mark villages of shy but friendly Melanesians who invite you into their homes. Exquisite harmonies drift from nearby churches, the focal points of most communities in this overwhelmingly Christian nation. But here, like so many places, poverty and environmental degradation intertwine to threaten the idyllic scene.
Arriving on Simbo Island after sunset, my wife and I were led through the rainforest, following the disembodied voice of a shirtless villager, skin dark as the night around him. At the village we presented our letter of introduction, whereupon we were warmly welcomed and given the bedroom of a village leader.
Meeting with church elders we learned that poor sanitation and malaria top a list of problems. The beach provides the only restroom and the nation has one of the world's highest rates of malaria infection. It quickly became apparent that lack of capital is a tremendous roadblock to any improvement and there is virtually no source of income. Copra had once been a major product but the market had collapsed. Although villagers still grew sufficient food, it was nearly impossible to pay for fuel, medicine and school fees. The situation is the same throughout the archipelago.
With almost no tax base (90% of the islanders still live in a subsistence economy), the government is perhaps even more desperate. Despite its superficial resemblance to paradise, The Economist recently suggested that the Solomon Islands might become the Pacific's first failed state.
But the archipelago is not without riches, and foreign companies lust after forests and minerals that a desperate country is often too eager to sell. Unlike many places, local communities own most of the land. However, for subsistence farmers and fishermen who have increasing contact with the affluence of the West, the temptation to sell their forests and reefs to buy capital items such as outboards and fiberglass canoes is overwhelming. And with government revenues dependent on taxes on timber and fish (in the mid-1990's over 50% of government income came from timber exports) authorities often encourage the headlong destruction. At the current rate of exploitation, the Solomons will have no virgin forest by 2015. One mining proposal that was apparently considered for Simbo would have paid each islander nearly $5000 and relocated most of the population.
The Solomon Islands have a history of headhunting, and hidden in the forest a young man shows me several enormous piles of skulls. "These are from Kolombangarra, and these over here are from Ranongga," he points, naming several of the nearby islands. After a pause to let it sink in, he says, "…but now we have Jesus," giving me the most succinct and persuasive argument I have ever heard for the positive impact of missionaries.
Further down the archipelago, the magnificent Marovo Lagoon stretches for nearly seventy miles. Declared the eighth wonder of the world by James Michener, there has been a concerted effort to have it named a World Heritage Site. However it is also home to 11,000 people in over 50 villages on hundreds of islands, each confronting the same issues that face the island of Simbo.
Near the village of Michi, my wife and I stayed at Vanua Rapita, a village-based eco-tourism lodge created with the assistance of the World Wide Fund for Nature (also known as the World Wildlife Fund in the U.S.). My initial impression was fantastic: on its own tiny island, three immaculate leaf houses are built over the water. Fresh flowers adorn the beds, and villagers take turns preparing meals. When the villagers perform their traditional dances they unselfconsciously wear matching T-shirts that read "Shine Jesus Shine."
One afternoon the manager told us the story of Michi's competing offers: sell the forest for immediate cash and "development" or build something more sustainable. They had chosen the sustainable approach. Yet sadly, since our visit, civil war elsewhere in the country drastically reduced the already scarce tourist traffic. According to one report, Michi made barely $40 per person from the lodge in 2000.
The poverty-environmental degradation cycle is strong, although the dynamic is slightly different than other places. It is not the woodcutting and agriculture of the islanders that is destroying the land. Rather poverty makes them vulnerable to outside exploitation. Unfortunately their Christian formation currently provides little to protect them. A former advisor to the Rapita project tells of a villager who, when asked what he would tell his children if he ate the last hawksbill turtle, responded by saying he would tell them how good it tasted. For this reason, in neighboring and culturally similar Papua New Guinea, Peter Illyn of Restoring Eden is working with church leaders to develop the stewardship ethic of local believers.
The future for villages like Michi is tenuous. The experience of the island nation of Nauru provides a stark warning. At one point in the 1980s Nauru boasted the second highest GDP in the world, as phosphate mines in the center of the island were exploited. Today, the phosphate exhausted, 90% of the island is a wasteland and a bankrupt government is reduced to being paid for hosting Australia's unwanted refugees.
The loss of the riches of the Solomons' rainforests and lagoons would be staggering in itself, but as Christians we have an even greater connection--thousands of our brothers and sisters face the loss of their future. There are no easy answers. Awareness is perhaps a first step. Prayer is the second step--the most critical step. We must remember that prayer is more powerful than the seemingly intractable forces that would destroy the Marovo lagoon and the many islands in the lagoon like Simbo, so I urge you to pray for the land and its people.
Editor's Note: Scott Sabin is Executive Director of Floresta, an EEN Partner. This is the second in a series of articles from Scott exploring the interrelationships between poverty and creation-care. For more information on Floresta, go to www.floresta.org.
Climate Change: a Christian Challenge and Opportunity
Sir John HoughtonTwenty years or so ago was the era of leaders like Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher. They were both strong leaders and good friends with a great respect for each other. Margaret Thatcher was a scientist and proud of her links with the science community. In 1988, when speaking at the annual dinner of the Royal Society in London, the British equivalent of the U.S. National Academy of Science, she spoke of the possible threat posed by global warming and the urgency for scientists to address it and understand it.
She later spoke of our need as humans to care for the Earth. She explained that "We have a full repairing lease on the Earth," meaning that we must pass it on to the next generation in a better state than we found it. In saying that she is echoing the Christian doctrine of creation that 'The Earth is the Lord's' and to be good stewards of it is fundamental to our Christian obedience.
Soon after that Margaret Thatcher speech, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) held its first meeting and I became chairman of the Panel's scientific assessment. Because of the importance of climate change to all countries, we involved as contributors or reviewers hundreds of scientists drawn from as many countries as possible. Our task was honestly and objectively to distinguish between what is known with reasonable certainty from those areas of knowledge where the uncertainty is large. Over the past 15 years the IPCC has produced three very thorough assessments - in 1990, 1995 and 2001 - all covering science, impacts and analyses of policy options. Because the IPCC is an intergovernmental body, the reports' Summaries for Policymakers were agreed sentence by sentence by meetings of governmental delegates from about 100 countries - including the United States and all the world's major countries. No assessments on any other scientific topic have been so thoroughly researched and reviewed.
In 2001, the United States National Academy of Sciences was commissioned by the President George W Bush administration to assess the current understanding of climate change. Its report, published in June 2001, is generally supportive of the IPCC's conclusions. In particular it states "The IPCC's conclusion that most of the observed warming of the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations accurately reflects the current thinking of the scientific community on this issue."
Let me give a quick summary of some of the science of Global Warming. By absorbing infra-red or 'heat' radiation from the earth's surface, "greenhouse gases" present in the atmosphere, such as water vapour and carbon dioxide, act as blankets over the earth's surface, keeping it warmer than it would otherwise be. The existence of this natural "greenhouse effect" has been known for nearly two hundred years; it is essential to the provision of our current climate to which ecosystems and we humans have adapted.
Since the beginning of the industrial revolution around 1750, one of these greenhouse gases, carbon dioxide, has increased by over 30% and is now at a higher concentration in the atmosphere than it has been for many thousands of years. Chemical analysis of the carbon demonstrates that this increase is due largely to the burning of fossil fuels - coal, oil and gas. If no action is taken to curb these emissions, the carbon dioxide concentration will rise during the 21st century to two or three times its preindustrial level.
The climate record over the last 1,000 years shows a lot of natural variability - including, for instance, the 'medieval warm period' and the 'little ice age'. The rise in global average temperature (and the rate of rise) that has occurred during the 20th century is well outside the range of known natural variability. The year 1998 is the warmest year in the instrumental record. A more striking statistic is that each of the first 8 months of 1998 was the warmest on record. It is likely that most of the warming over the last 50 years is due to the increase of greenhouse gases, especially carbon dioxide.
Over the 21st century the global average temperature is projected to rise by between 2 and 6 ºC (3.5 to 11 ºF) from its preindustrial level. Considering that it is the global average temperature that is being considered, a rise of this amount is large. Associated with the likely warming in the 21st century will be a rate of change of climate that is the equivalent of approximately half an ice age in less than 100 years - a larger rate of change than for at least 10,000 years. Adapting to such a rate will be difficult for both humans and many ecosystems.
Some of the most obvious impacts will be due to the rise in sea level that occurs because ocean water expands as it is heated. The projected rise is of the order of half a metre (20 inches) a century and will continue for many centuries - to warm the deep oceans as well as the surface waters takes a long time. Some areas, for instance in Bangladesh, southern China, islands in the Indian and Pacific oceans and similar areas in many parts of the world, will be impossible to protect and many millions will be displaced.
There will also be impacts from extreme events. The extremely unusual high temperatures in central Europe during the summer of 2003 led to the deaths of over 20,000 people. Careful analysis leads to the projection that such summers are likely to be average by the middle of the 21st century and cool by the year 2100.
The hydrological cycle will become more intense. This means a tendency to more intense rainfall events and also less rainfall in some semi-arid areas. Since, on average, floods and droughts are the most damaging of the world's disasters, a greater frequency and intensity of floods and droughts is bad news for most human communities but most especially for those regions such as south east Asia and sub-Saharan Africa where such events already occur only too frequently.
Sea level rise, changes in water availability and extreme events will lead to increasing pressure from environmental refugees. A careful estimate has suggested that, due to climate change, there could be more than 150 million extra refugees by 2050.
Unless strong measures are taken global emissions of carbon dioxide will reach two or three times their present levels during the 21st century. The carbon dioxide concentration in the atmosphere is currently about 377 parts per million (ppm), about 35% above its preindustrial level. To stabilise carbon dioxide concentrations in the range 400-550 ppm, emissions must be reduced to a fraction of their present levels during the 21st century.
To achieve reductions in carbon dioxide emissions three sorts of actions are required. First, large improvements in the efficiency of energy generation and use can easily be made, many of them with significant savings in cost. Secondly, a wide variety of non-fossil fuel sources of energy are available for development and exploitation, for instance, biomass (including waste), solar power (both photovoltaic and thermal), hydro, wind, wave, tidal and geothermal energy. Thirdly, there are possibilities for sequestering carbon that would otherwise enter the atmosphere either through the planting of forests or by pumping underground (for instance in spent oil and gas wells).
People often say to me that I am wasting my time talking about global warming. I reply that I am optimistic for three reasons. First, I have experienced the commitment of the world scientific community (including scientists from many different nations, backgrounds and cultures) in painstakingly and honestly working together to understand the problems and assessing what needs to be done. Secondly, I believe the necessary technology is available for achieving satisfactory solutions. My third reason is that I believe God is committed to his creation. He demonstrated this most eloquently by sending his son Jesus to be part of creation and by giving to us the responsibility of being good stewards of creation. What is more I believe that we do not do this on our own but in partnership with him - a partnership that is presented so beautifully in the early chapters of Genesis where we read that God walked with Adam and Eve in the garden in the cool of the day.
A particularly strong challenge to our discipleship comes from the realisation that the adverse impacts will fall disproportionately on the poorer nations, partially because of the nature of climate changes, especially climate extremes, in their countries and partially because they lack the infrastructure that would enable them to adapt. We, in the developed countries, have already benefited over many generations from abundant fossil fuel energy.. There is already a strong tendency in the world for the rich to get even richer while the poor get poorer. The impacts of human induced climate change will tend to further bolster that trend. Let me remind you of words of Jesus spoken after he had told the parable contrasting the faithful and unfaithful stewards, "For unto whomsoever much is given, of him shall be much required" (Luke 12:48). The challenge to our Christian churches and the opportunities with which they are presented are unmistakeable.
Finally, let me address those who argue that we can 'wait and see' before action is necessary. That is not a responsible position. The need for action is urgent for three reasons. The first reason is scientific. Because the oceans take time to warm, there is a lag of thirty years or more in the response of climate to the increase of greenhouse gases. Because of human induced greenhouse gas emissions to date, a commitment to substantial climate change already exists, much of which will not be realised for several decades. Additional emissions just add to that commitment. The second reason is economic. Energy infrastructure, power plants for instance, lasts typically for 30 to 50 years. It is much more cost effective to begin now to phase in the required infrastructure changes rather than having to make them much more rapidly later. The third reason is political. Countries like China and India are industrialising very rapidly. They need to do so in ways that are much more efficient and with much smaller greenhouse gas emissions than has been done in the developed world. When the developed nations of the west take action, they will take action. They will follow, not lead.
There are some things that all of us can do. For instance, when purchasing vehicles or appliances we can choose ones that are fuel efficient; we can ensure our homes are as energy efficient as possible; we can use public transportation or car-share more frequently and we can support leaders in government or industry who are advocating or organising the necessary solutions. To quote from a British parliamentarian of 200 years ago, "No one made a greater mistake than he who did nothing because he could do so little."
Editors Note: From 1988-2002 Sir John Houghton was Chair of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's scientific assessment. He is currently Chair of the John Ray Initiative. This article is adapted from a presentation he gave to the Board of the National Association of Evangelicals, March 11, 2005.
Organic Gardening
Kara Unger BallOrganic gardening is a wonderful thing your family can do to reduce your exposure to pesticides and help create a healthy environment for your neighbor. Produce from your organic vegetable garden will be pesticide free, and will be fresher than store bought, including retaining more vitamins. And nothing beats the thrill of seeing seeds sprout and eating food you've grown in your garden! Also, organic gardening is more in keeping with God's intentions to maintain His provision for healthy, productive soils and waters (Gen. 1: 11-12). Pesticides can "nuke" the soil, making it a sterile wasteland instead of the fertile, life-filled medium God intended.
By gardening organically, you will be reducing pesticide runoff that can get into drinking water and streams where it can hurt others, and there will be less chance you will track pesticides into your home on your shoes and clothes. It's also important not to use pesticides in your flower or vegetable garden if you attract wildlife to your home (such as with a bird feeder or bird bath).
What does it mean for me to garden organically?
The simple answer is that organic gardeners don't use synthetic fertilizers or pesticides on their plants. But gardening organically is much more than what you don't do. When you garden organically, think of your plants as part of a whole system that starts in the soil and includes the water supply, people, wildlife, and even insects. An organic gardener strives to work in harmony with God's creation and to minimize and continually replenish any resources the garden consumes. Organic gardening, then, begins with attention to the soil. You regularly add organic matter to the soil, using locally available resources wherever possible, including your own compost. If you add compost to your soil, you're already well on your way to raising a beautiful, healthy garden organically.
The other key to growing organically is to choose plants suited to the site. Plants adapted to your climate and conditions are better able to grow without a lot of attention or input; on the other hand, when you try to grow a plant that is not right for your site, you will probably have to boost its natural defenses to keep it healthy and productive.
Starting a new garden - where do I begin?
Start by looking around your yard and taking note of which areas get a lot of sun, which are shaded all day, and which are sunlit for part of the day. Also, notice which spots tend to be damp all the time and which dry out very fast. Now you can use that information to choose the site of your new garden and the plants that will fare well there. When you select plants that thrive in your conditions, you have to care for them less.
Before you begin have your soil tested for lead and pesticides. Then check with your local nursery to find which plants grow best in your area.
Before you buy the plants, you want to prepare the site. Loosen the soil with a shovel, garden fork and/or tiller 6 to 8 inches deep, and add several inches of compost to it. If the soil is sandy, mix in an extra helping of compost. Vegetables, fruits and herbs can grow either in the ground or in raised beds, which are built up 4 to 6 inches above the surrounding ground. Most flowers thrive in raised beds, too. The soil in raised beds drains quickly so plants never sit in water, and the soil warms up fast in spring.
You can build a raised bed by adding a lot of organic matter to the soil and fluffing up the soil with a garden fork, then raking soil from the areas that will be paths up onto the beds. Many gardeners like to enclose their raised beds in wooden or plastic frames; others just mound up the soil. (Don't frame your garden with pressure-treated wood-it contains arsenic and other toxins that can leach into your soil.)
How do I get healthy soil?
You could say building soil is the defining act of organic gardening. By regularly replenishing the nutrients your plants use, you keep the soil productive. Mix organic matter (preferably your own compost) into the soil whenever possible. Ideal garden soil is dark-colored, smells kind of sweet, compresses into a loose lump in your hand when moist, and is full of earthworms.
Certain soils may need even more of a boost than a regular, liberal dose of compost can provide, but before you add anything else to your soil, get a soil test. Your local U.S. Department of Agriculture Extension Service can provide information on where to get a soil test. The results of your test will tell you the soil's pH and what nutrients are out of balance. With that information, you can choose amendments to bolster the soil. Choose from many organic soil amendments, like bone meal, greensand or rock phosphates, all derived from natural sources and each suited to particular need.
How can I control weeds without pesticides?
In a word, mulch. Blanket the ground around your plants with shredded leaves, straw, dry grass clippings, wood or bark chips, newspaper or other degradable material, and that layer of mulch will block light from reaching weeds and stop or slow their growth. (Mulch also conserves moisture and builds your soil as it decomposes.) How can you get rid of weeds that are already there? Buy a good hoe designed for weeding, such as a stirrup or diamond style hoe, which allows you to slice off weeds below the soil surface.
You can suppress the growth of weed seeds early in the season by spreading corn gluten meal over the area where they're growing. Corn gluten meal, a by-product of corn processing that's often used to feed livestock, inhibits the germination of weed seeds-bear in mind, once the weeds have gone beyond the sprout stage, corn gluten will not affect them. Also, corn gluten doesn't discriminate between seeds you want to sprout and those you don't want, so avoid using corn gluten meal where and when you've sown seeds. It works best in established lawns and perennial beds.
Weeding may seem like an endless battle when you first start your garden, but if you diligently use your hoe, you will eventually reduce your weed pressures to almost nil.
How can I manage insects without pesticides?
It is certainly understandable that gardeners become anxious when they see pests on their plants, and want to react decisively when they see their plants damaged. But insects are a crucial part of God's provision of a healthy, productive natural system. When you see insects in your garden, take some time to really watch what they're doing. Are they actually destroying the plant or just nibbling it a bit? Many plants can outgrow minor damage. Also, in many cases, insects attack stressed out plants. Do you have enough healthy plants to spare the sickly ones? Can you restore sickly plants to robust health so they can resist insect attack? The best defenses against insect attack are preventative measures. Grow plants suited to the site and they'll be less stressed out. Don't let them be too wet, too dry or too shaded. Design a diverse garden, so that pests of a particular plant won't decimate an entire section of the garden. Rotate your plant locations within the garden.
Most importantly, encourage the natural predators of pest insects to hunt in your garden-beneficial insects (such as the common ladybug), birds, frogs and lizards control pests by eating them. You can make your garden hospitable for your natural allies by keeping a water source (just a dish-full, if that's all you've got) nearby for them and by not wiping out the entire pest population with a pesticide, sending the beneficials elsewhere in search of food. Also, grow plants with small blossoms like sweet alyssum and dill, which attract predatory insects who feed on flowers' nectar between attacks on pests.
Barriers such as row covers, netting and plant collars very effectively protect crops from pests. Sticky traps and pheromone lures are another way to minimize your pest problems without harming other living things in your garden. You'll find row covers and other barriers, along with traps at your local garden center and in mail-order catalogs.
If you need to react quickly to an acute pest invasion you can choose from several natural products that affect specific insects, won't harm humans, pets or wildlife, and that degrade quickly in the environment. Horticultural oils, insecticidal soaps (not household soaps) and garlic and/or hot pepper sprays also work well against many pests.
How can I control plant diseases without fungicides?
The best way to avoid plant diseases is to choose varieties that resist them-look on the tags at the garden center or in catalog descriptions for mention of disease resistance. Then be sure to put those plants in the conditions they thrive in, because a stressed-out plant is more susceptible to disease. Many fungal diseases are encouraged by constant moisture and too little air circulating around plants. To remedy that, plan your garden with enough room to accommodate full-grown plants, because water evaporates more slowly and air doesn't circulate well among crowded plants. And water your garden beds deeply and then allow the top level of soil to dry out before watering again. If diseases do appear, remove afflicted leaves (or entire plants) from your garden as soon as possible.
What fertilizers can I use to feed my plants?
Organic gardeners work to build nutrient-rich soil by continually adding organic matter (particularly compost) to the soil rather than feeding plants directly. Mixing well-rotted farm animal manures (especially cow, horse and chicken manure) into the soil provides an abundant supply of nitrogen to your plants. Nitrogen is the key nutrient plants use for growing leaves. If you can add an inch or so of compost to your garden each year, you probably don't need any additional fertilizers.
You'll see a lot of different packaged organic fertilizers in garden centers and mail-order catalogs. Many derive their nitrogen boost from fish or feather meal-in both cases, the ingredients typically are food processing waste. The best of these fertilizers are "slow-release" foods that nourish plants incrementally as they decompose in the soil. Though fertilizer made from municipal sludge (sometimes called "biosolids") is often sold as "organic," research has found that this sludge contains heavy metals that can build up in your soil so it's best to use another product.
To give your plants a more immediate boost or for feeding those growing in soil that is more difficult to amend (like plants in containers), you can use liquid fertilizers that are commonly made from fish processing waste combined with mineral-rich seaweed (often kelp). You'll find these liquid fertilizers as concentrates that you mix with water and apply directly to plants' leaves.
Editors Note: This article was adapted from EEN's Healthy Families, Healthy Environment website, www.healthyfamiliesnow.org.